Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 General Discussion
 Trivial Questions
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2007 :  19:50:23  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Have you ever had a question pop into your head, the kind which you'd sorta like to know the answer, but aren't interested enough to put forth the effort to research an answer? This is the thread for you, because maybe someone else will find the question more interesting, or perhaps even knows the answer already.

I'll start off: when was the first case of an internal cancer diagnosed before the patient died?

I'm guessing that back in the early 1800s, perhaps, people died from various cancers all the time, but the disease was only discovered to be cancer after an autopsy. A "well, there's your problem" sorta thing. When did a doctor first say to a patient, "I'm sorry, but you have pancreatic (or liver, or colon, or lung or whatever) cancer" with the doctor being certain of the diagnosis?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.

McQ
Skeptic Friend

USA
258 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2007 :  21:14:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send McQ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, this is a good starting question. I looked for the answer at the American Cancer Society website, and think I found what you're looking for, Dave. From their site:

Oldest Descriptions of Cancer

Cancer has afflicted humans throughout recorded history. It is no surprise that from the dawn of history doctors have written about cancer. Some of the earliest evidence of cancer is found among fossilized bone tumors, human mummies in ancient Egypt, and ancient manuscripts. Bone remains of mummies have revealed growths suggestive of the bone cancer, osteosarcoma. In other cases, bony skull destruction as seen in cancer of the head and neck has been found.

Our oldest description of cancer (although the term cancer was not used) was discovered in Egypt and dates back to approximately 1600 B.C. The Edwin Smith Papyrus, or writing, describes 8 cases of tumors or ulcers of the breast that were treated by cauterization, with a tool called "the fire drill." The writing says about the disease, "There is no treatment."


Origin of the Word Cancer

The origin of the word cancer is credited to the Greek physician Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.), considered the "Father of Medicine." Hippocrates used the terms carcinos and carcinoma to describe non-ulcer forming and ulcer-forming tumors. In Greek these words refer to a crab, most likely applied to the disease because the finger-like spreading projections from a cancer called to mind the shape of a crab. Carcinoma is the most common type of cancer.



This would indicate that diagnosis and treatment for cancer was underway in Egypt way back. Pretty brutal method for dealing with the breast tumor.

Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette
Edited by - McQ on 02/25/2007 21:15:00
Go to Top of Page

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1264 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2007 :  06:08:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Boron10 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
When was the Japanese National Anthem written?

Who wrote it?

What are the (translated to English) lyrics, if any?

What, if any, is the cultural/historical significance of the song?
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2007 :  06:28:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
1. Who were the scientists that rolled over the Piltdown hoax?

2. What are Fleisman and Pons doing today?

3. Why did Ford, back in the '50s, produce the Edsel?

4. Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2007 :  09:06:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Wikipedia is your friend.

Japan's anthem is called Kimi ga Yo (Imperial Reign). The lyrics are based on a Heian Period poem and the music was written in the Meiji Era. It was established as a national anthem in 1999.

Here's the lyrics:
quote:
an anonymous poem-writer composed

Kimi ga yo wa
Chiyo ni
Yachiyo ni
Sazare ishi no
Iwao to narite
Koke no musu made

May your Imperial reign
Continue for a thousand years,
And last for eight thousand generations,
Until pebbles
Turn into boulders
Covered in moss.



It's from Wikipedia - Kimi ga Yo.

And since we're talking about anthems, Brazil's national anthem is, surprisingly, called Brazilian National Anthem (or, Hino Nacional Brasileiro). It's very, very long and can be found here.

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Edited by - Siberia on 02/27/2007 09:10:35
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2007 :  13:48:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by McQ

This would indicate that diagnosis and treatment for cancer was underway in Egypt way back.
Thanks, McQ, but it seems like they were only dealing with cancers that create visible ulcers. I'm wondering about the first diagnosis of an internal cancer without benefit of cutting the patient open.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2007 :  14:39:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by filthy

1. Who were the scientists that rolled over the Piltdown hoax?
If you mean "exposed" by "rolled over," then according to Talk.Origins,
1953 -- Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley expose the hoax.
If you mean "perpetrated the hoax," the world may never know.
quote:
2. What are Fleisman and Pons doing today?
Well, from PhysicsWeb, 1999:
What has become of the original protagonists? Martin Fleischmann apparently had a nasty falling out with Stanley Pons over the direction of research at IMRA and returned to Southampton in1995, where he is still working on theoretical models of cold fusion. In a recent phone interview, Fleischmann told Physics World that he just got fed up with his ideas being ignored. He is apparently still collaborating with scientists in the UK and working with Italian scientists to set up a cold-fusion programme. Looking back, he insists that he was thoroughly opposed to any public announcement of the cold-fusion results from the very beginning, but that the University of Utah insisted on a press conference.

Less is known about the activities of Stanley Pons. He has reportedly become a French citizen and now lives on a farm somewhere in the south of France. Owing to bitterness at his treatment by the press and the scientific establishment, he will not speak with anyone outside a small circle of friends and sympathetic cold-fusion researchers. But sources close to Pons say that he is attempting to re-establish himself in electrochemistry research by collaborating with scientists in France, although not in cold fusion.
Pons doesn't seem to have made any impression on the world since then - at least not any that's talked about on the Internet. Fleischmann, on the other hand, went to work for D2Fusion nearly a year ago.
quote:
3. Why did Ford, back in the '50s, produce the Edsel?
According to Wikipedia,
In the early 1950s, Ford Motor Co. became a publicly-traded corporation that was no longer entirely owned by members of the Ford family and was able to sell cars without being hindered by Henry Ford's antiquated preferences following the sellers' market of the post-war years. The new management compared the roster of Ford makes with that of General Motors, and noted that Lincoln competed not with Cadillac, but with Oldsmobile. The plan was developed to move Lincoln upmarket and put another make in beneath it, with yet another model, the Continental, at the very top.
But apparently they missed their own goals.
quote:
4. Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
Right here in these forums, sometimes. Or so it seems.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2007 :  14:51:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
This might have been more appropriate in bill's thread, but what are the most convincing evidences that Global Warming has human causes?

It seems the new Republican/Conservative spin isn't to deny that Global Warming is occurring, but to claim that it's a completely natural part of the Earth's climate cycle and that man-made emmisions have no effect on the process.

So why are scientists 90% certain GW is human caused, or at least human accelerated?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/27/2007 14:53:05
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2007 :  16:03:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert

This might have been more appropriate in bill's thread, but what are the most convincing evidences that Global Warming has human causes?

It seems the new Republican/Conservative spin isn't to deny that Global Warming is occurring, but to claim that it's a completely natural part of the Earth's climate cycle and that man-made emmisions have no effect on the process.

So why are scientists 90% certain GW is human caused, or at least human accelerated?



The most basic synopsis of the idea is the following:

Greenhouse gases cause increases in temperature.
Fluctuations in greenhouse gases from natural sources like volcanoes
can increase temperatures.
The wobble of the Earth also can cause fluctuation in the amount of
heat the Earth's atmosphere can trap.
Compilations of the data shows that the Earth has undergone warm and
cold periods.
Industry creates greenhouse gases.
There is a correlation of the increase in temperatures with the
industrial revolution and the increase in industrialization.
The data shows that the temperature increases lately have far
outwayed those increases in all of the data of the past,
including the warming period of Europe.
The data also shows that the greenhouse gases are at their highest.
Altering the system of anything, including the Earth, will naturally
have some consequences.

So concerning human involvement:

If a volcano can cause increases in temperature, so can a factory.

and concerning how much:

The charts show that we have no record of such drastic increases in greenhouse gases or temperature. So the correlation we observed is evidence by about a hundred thousand years of record in the polar ice caps. It is almost as though we ran a 100,000 year experiment with a 99,800 years of control, and two-hundred years of human induced changes. The ratio then being the increase since industrialization and the over all mean in the control period, which shows the degree of potential human involvement. It is always a possibility that the drastic changes would have happened anyway and it is outside of the 100,000 year experiment period, but that is the longshot, equivalent to saying that all the fish in the pond would have spontaneously expired anyway when a blasting cap is present as evidence.

A few links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#INTRO
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Edited by - Neurosis on 02/27/2007 16:05:40
Go to Top of Page

McQ
Skeptic Friend

USA
258 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2007 :  20:37:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send McQ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by McQ

This would indicate that diagnosis and treatment for cancer was underway in Egypt way back.
Thanks, McQ, but it seems like they were only dealing with cancers that create visible ulcers. I'm wondering about the first diagnosis of an internal cancer without benefit of cutting the patient open.



Dave, don't confuse the word "ulcer" as it is used here, to mean something only on the surface. Tumors, like those in Locally Advanced Mucinous Carcinoma, occur deep in the tissue, and can cause "ulceration" of muscle tissue and other tissues, below the skin surface.

It is entirely possible and likely that these were describing typical carcinomas. That would mean they were correctly diagnosing "cancer" before the patient died, and were actively trying to treat it, in much the same way we do today.

Perhaps I don't understand what your original question is, but to diagnose cancer without actually looking at the tumor, via tumor markers or imaging techniques would obviously have been much more recent. First imaging would have been Xrays, around the turn of the 20th century. Tumor Markers, since the 1960's. But even Tumor Markers often aren't a definitive diagnosis without biopsy or imaging.

Either way, what was described in Egypt was the same thing we see today, just via MRI and biopsy. So we're still using invasive techniques to diagnose cancer.

Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2007 :  23:20:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Perhaps I phrased my original question poorly.

I mean, I certainly understand how one could fairly easily diagnose breast, skin or testicular cancers without benefit of actually doing any cutting. Everyone is encouraged to do self-exams nowadays as a first line of defense against such things.

I suppose what I'm asking is if there were methods - perhaps only of historical interest with today's high-tech gadgets - of correctly diagnosing liver cancer or brain tumors, as opposed to hepatitis or psychosis (respectively), way back in the bad old days of humors and vapours?

Hell, it wasn't until 200 years ago that psoriasis was fully differentiated from leprosy, even though some of the descriptions we have from 3,500-year-old papyruses suggest - with 20/20 hindsight - psoriasis was seen. Clearly, people have been able to find and label cancers for much longer than that, but how many stomach and lung cancers in Hippocrates' day went undiagnosed until after the patient croaked?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular

Canada
510 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2007 :  00:37:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ghost_Skeptic a Private Message  Reply with Quote
How many (as a %) vegetarians (do not eat fish or meat of any kind but may eat dairy or eggs) and how many vegans (no animal products whatsoever) are there in the US (and Canada if available)? I have googled my brains out on this and only got vague and outdated statistics. How many vegetarian except for eating fish would be good to know also.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King

History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms

"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler

"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson
Go to Top of Page

McQ
Skeptic Friend

USA
258 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2007 :  14:49:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send McQ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I found a little more cancer treatment and diagnosis info. on the ACS website I looked at earlier.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_the_history_of_cancer_72.asp?sitearea=CRI

I think that early on (like way, way long ago before the dark ages), the use of autopsies aided people in making the connection between the patient's signs and symptoms and the cause of death. As more knowledge was built upon this, it certainly aided people in correctly diagnosing certain cancers by what we call now the H&P, or History and Physical.

Asking the patient questions about symptoms, noting signs of disease, and physical examinations were pretty good at nailing down some cancers. Others I'm sure were beyond the ability to recognize from that alone.

An example of this is my son's Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Based on his symptoms, signs and history, there was no reason to suspect Hodgkin's. He simply didn't have any of the usual symptoms, and those he had were diagnosed as Epstein-Barr virus (Mononucleosis), which unfortunately, he did have, and thus it masked the Hodgkin's. But he was already Stage III and had virtually no symptoms.

Cancer is still difficult to diagnose early on in some tumor types, such as lung cancer. It's a good question though. I'll dig through some manuals when I have more time. Most of my books are on current treatment though, so I don't know if I have anything good on the history of cancer diagnosis.

Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2007 :  14:58:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ok, this has bugged me for a long time.

I don't quite understand how rotational gravity is supposed to work in spaceships. From what I understand, a ship outfitted with a large rotating cylinder would simulate gravity for the people inside, since centrifugal force would keep them pressed against the hull of the ship.

But wouldn't they have to be strapped to the hull? I mean, if not, wouldn't they just tumble around inside like a sock in a dryer? Is there a warm up period? Like if you strap yourself to the hull and wait until it gets up to speed, can you then get up and walk around, since now you're already stuck?

I've just never quite understood how this principle is supposed to work.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/28/2007 15:01:07
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2007 :  15:17:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert

Ok, this has bugged me for a long time.

I don't quite understand how rotational gravity is supposed to work in spaceships. From what I understand, a ship outfitted with a large rotating cylinder would simulate gravity for the people inside, since centrifugal force would keep them pressed against the hull of the ship.

But wouldn't they have to be strapped to the hull? I mean, if not, wouldn't they just tumble around inside like a sock in a dryer? Is there a warm up period? Like if you strap yourself to the hull and wait until it gets up to speed, can you then get up and walk around, since now you're already stuck?

I've just never quite understood how this principle is supposed to work.





I don't know about the warm up period thing, but centripital force(not centrifugal force) pulls the people to the ground. The centripital force acts on any body in a centrifuge pushing it away from the center. This is the principal that seperates things by their density in a centrifuge. If the dryer were spinning fast enough, it would lock the sock to the side with a constant force. It could easily be calibrated to equal gravity and in space, it would never slow down.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Edited by - Neurosis on 02/28/2007 15:17:52
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2007 :  15:20:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
All the air in the spaceship rotates with the hull, too, H..

Actually, if you ran a clothes dryer in space, all the clothes would just cling to the tumbler, and not tumble.

The key is that no matter where you are on your circular trip, your intertia is always trying to "push" you directly away from the spin axis.

Imagine you're on such a ship, and have had to go back to tinker with the engines, in the non-rotating part of the ship. To get back to your "desk," you're going to float to the spin axis of the rotating section (because putting a door anywhere else would be madness), and probably start using a ladder to get "down" to the "floor." The very act of grabbing the ladder is what gets you spinning at the correct angular rate, although you won't feel your full "weight" until you climb all the way "down" to the "floor."

Once on the "floor" and standing, if you were to jump against the spin motion, at the correct angle and speed to counteract your inertia, you would, indeed, start just floating around within the rotating portion until the air moving past you (because it's rotating with the hull, too) pushed you back to the "floor." But if the rotation is fast enough - or the ship large enough - to provide a one-G acceleration (mimicking normal Earth gravity), then you'd have to be able to jump at over 21 MPH.

If I remember correctly, the Mythbusters managed to jump at 3 MPH while working up the data for the "Elevator of Death."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.91 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000